The state doesn't own anything, property can only be owned by the people.
By unionizing, teachers support themselves. The social betrayal of students is rather in the sanction of inefficiently distributed property, which results in an equally inefficient distribution of resources among schools, regardless of whether the resources are collected indirectly, in the form property taxes, or directly, in the form of tuition.
I think what you say about funding has some truth in large metropolitan area and not otherwise. I don't have a problem with unionizing. I do have a problem with politicians who back unions at the expense of the education of our children.
By allowing people on its piece of Earth, same as any other landlord.
Your form of government owns everything.
Who fends for oneself? The state fends for the rich by enforcing their property entitlements. If they wanted to fend for themselves, they would return their property to the commons and sell their labor like everyone else--properly, not confused with capital.
I work and earn my my keep. I fend for myself. The state has an obligation by our Constitution to defend our life, our liberty and our property. Rich or poor. Someone being rich or poor has no adverse affect on me by itself.
By that logic, a corporation can't own property. States have the same feudal origin as personal property and its combinations. The only difference is that most states have been formally democratized whereas most personal properties and their combinations are still monarchic or oligarchic.
I see you lean "communist." Are you a communist who has read and follows the writings of Marx and Engels? Is communism to you all of us working in the fields every day and taking to the home that looks like everyone else's the same portion and kind of food as all the other workers?
A corporation is a legal construct. If all the people who make up a corporation leave, the only thing left is a pile of useless paper that can make no decisions on its own. A government, similarly, is a legal construct. It exists only so long as the people decide that it exists. When they decide it's gone, it ceases to be.
This is a topic that really puzzles me. Living in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles we probably take property rights for granted and give it little thought.
When someone wants your computer, they are forbidden from taking it for their own use no matter how bad they want it. Why is that? Well. It's yours. It belongs to you. It is immoral, unethical, illegal, disappointing and annoying for you to steal it. Why is it yours? The owner of the store gave it to you in exchange for pieces of paper or a credit card or debit card swipe or a promissory not which is a manifestation of your present or future labor which you have traded in exchange for the computer. Who gave the computer to them? Well. They obtain the parts to build the computer through voluntary transactions with their previous owner. That argument works really good until you take it to the point of land. The land is where all natural resources originate. These natural resources are responsible for every single non-living thing in existence. Even the living things can be considered a natural resource. Who owns the property and why? That's easy. The person holding the deed.
This is where it gets tricky. When did the first transaction of real property occur? Who was the first entity to own the land and what was their justification of ownership? It seems like the concept of property rights had to be violated in order to begin the tradition of property rights.
This is where our discussion begins.
Any thoughts?
Property rights are around even in the animal kingdom. Just think of the leader of the pack. No other wolf will touch his portion. There are birds that will not eat food brought home for the young. This went on throughout human history unanalyzed, much as humans traded in markets and forbade theft. As far as I remember economists started analyzing the thing in the 1950 or so.
You are confusing "stuff that an individual can prevent others from taking" with "stuff that a govt will protect from being taken by others"
Well, no. Property rights encompass both. It is only that we have to enforce some rights ourselves.
Nope, a dog that can keep other dogs from its' bone does not own the bone.
If you believe otherwise, please show me the law which says the dog owns the bone.
I was interpreting the economic essence of the matter. The legalism comes much later.
I am unable to make sense of that. What is the "economic essence" of giving rights to dogs and other animals and how can rights not be involved with "legalisms"?
Economics can easily be applied to the animal realm. Why is that confusing`?
You are not talking about just economics. You are arguing about rights, something animals do not have
The essence of property rights is economic.
No, it's not.
How can it be otherwise? When one makes laws and rights they either work well or badly. When we make a law, we want it to work well, which it is, depends on the underlying economics. You have to get them right or the law backfires.
Our constitution got the rights right and that has helped the country be as successful as it has been.
Nonsense. Economics is not the only cosideration for whether a law works or not.
Boiling babies down to make soap might make economic sense, but it would still be reprehensible. Rights are not determined by economics
It didn't hurt that you sat around for two years while the Fascists exhausted themselves decimating your competitors, either.
This is a topic that really puzzles me. Living in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles we probably take property rights for granted and give it little thought.
When someone wants your computer, they are forbidden from taking it for their own use no matter how bad they want it. Why is that? Well. It's yours. It belongs to you. It is immoral, unethical, illegal, disappointing and annoying for you to steal it. Why is it yours? The owner of the store gave it to you in exchange for pieces of paper or a credit card or debit card swipe or a promissory not which is a manifestation of your present or future labor which you have traded in exchange for the computer. Who gave the computer to them? Well. They obtain the parts to build the computer through voluntary transactions with their previous owner. That argument works really good until you take it to the point of land. The land is where all natural resources originate. These natural resources are responsible for every single non-living thing in existence. Even the living things can be considered a natural resource. Who owns the property and why? That's easy. The person holding the deed.
This is where it gets tricky. When did the first transaction of real property occur? Who was the first entity to own the land and what was their justification of ownership? It seems like the concept of property rights had to be violated in order to begin the tradition of property rights.
This is where our discussion begins.
Any thoughts?
No, not all laws will make economic sense. But you will find that boiling babies down for soap does not usually make economic sense, if you analyse it.
I am sorry to say that that twist of mind's meaning eludes me.
WWII. It started in 1939, but you didn't show up until 1941. That bit of cowardice was crucial to your emergence as the sole superpower. As far as how you got into the running in the first place, well, that's a longer story, including the convenient failure of your "right rights" to extend to natives and slaves. Or maybe you're right, maybe it was the minor constitutional differences.